The exact language you quoted is the only place where she arguably disagrees with me.

I don't think Roberts is playing a long game to overturn Roe/Casey. Neither you nor Lithwick explain why he needs an expertly crafted statute to do so. In fact, crude restrictions like the Alabama statute are an attempt to force the Court, and Roberts specifically, to take the issue on directly. For several years, I thought he was dodging the question because he wasn't sure he had the votes. But at this point, I think it is better than 50% that Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch would vote to overturn if Roberts was on board. And yet he is still refraining.

Is he willing to erode the right by bits and pieces? Of course. If you want to call that a long game, then fine. But eliminating the right entirely? No. If anyone wants to bet on this question (assuming no ideological shift on the court), I'm very open to it.

The courts overturning Roe after 50 years and no changes to the law seems so out there I'm not convinced that Kavanaugh or Gorsuch would be wiling to cast the deciding vote to do it.

Seems like Roberts didn’t take the bait in the recent case.

I'm not convinced either, but it's a little tough to predict what they would do if Roberts was pushing hard.

How and Why the Viability Age for Babies Keeps Getting Younger

This might have some thing to do with this “erosion” and by the way are there any initiatives to expand abortion rights via liberalizing access to 3rd trimester abortions happening?

I didn't say anyone had altruistic reasons.
And if I can't know people's motives how can you ?

Is this an example of you making me look like an idiot ?

Yes, I am aware. That's why it's even more of a troll to the GOP. Roberts keeps siding with the liberal bloc in hot button issue cases using for pretty narrow reasons.

Kavanaugh would overturn for sure. He was pretty much hand picked to overturn Roe v Wade and protect Trump's executive power.

Gorsuch is more of a wild card. I don't believe he's written an opinion on an abortion case. Also, he was super evasive during Senate hearings re Roe v Wade. I could see him disagreeing but not wanting to overturn settled law.

I was thinking more of the situation where conservatives had another appointment and actually succeeded in getting another Thomas/Alito clone. Then Roberts plus the liberals would make 4 and they would need Kavs or Gorsuch. I think if Roberts votes to overturn with this court it's done,but I can't see that happening based on how he's ruled in high profile cases. Just a lay opinion though.

Yeah I would expect Gorsuch to flip. In other words, Gorsuch only voted how he did this time because he knew he was on the losing side.

Can/should this be a general Supreme Court thread?



Gotta admire the work of the Federalist Society. Decades of work to carve out expansive "religious freedom" entitlements that have never existed before, all while painting the other side as "activists".

John Roberts Just Bulldozed the Wall Separating Church and State

It gets worse:

Holy ****

I think "compelled to fund" is a slight stretch. The ruling was that funding all private schools except the religious ones solely because they are religious, is discriminatory against religion and people's right to the free exercise of religion. Which sort of makes sense on some levels, if you prohibit religion in schools, and people feel they need a religious school to properly exercise their religion, you are discriminating against their free exercise by funding everyone but their school.

The concurring opinions are just the usual originalist/textualist crap used to justify dragging the US back 50 years. Looks like they're 1 vote away from prayer being back in red state public schools. Hang in there RBG, 6 more months!

Gorsuch and Roberts, the majority opinions and actual law here, is actually not that crazy. As EADGBE observes, they just said it's discriminatory to allow parents to use vouchers for every private school EXCEPT religious schools.

For perspective on where the court stood before Espinoza (the case goofy is quoting) and stands even now, SCOTUS ruled in 2004 (with Roberts in majority and only Thomas/Scalia dissenting, Locke v Davey) that states can deny college scholarships to students studying to become priests.

But federal student loans for religious colleges and and other aid programs for religious schools (as long as its part of a broader program and not specifically targeted at religious schools), with its rather complicated body of case law analyzing "entanglement", have long been okay.

On a much higher level and hidden in the background, I think part of the confusion in this area of law is due to the recognition that
1. almost all religious schools nowadays are mostly secular on a day to day basis
2. and many of those religiously affliated (at least nominally so) schools have been quite effective.

when does this ruling come out? (i realize it isn't actually "roe vs. wade")

kavanagh said during congressional questioning he consider R vs. W "established law". but he does seem like a weinie (slight ted cruz feel to him)

grunching..... but it seems like roberts is trying to be balanced. and gorsuch has surprised a little recently

OK, i see it came out.

did roberts simply change his mind vs. texas decision 2 years ago? or am i missing something?......... and was he the deciding vote on texas? or just a vote?

I mean, Kavanaugh kind of has to say that in order to get confirmed by the Senate. However, if you look at his Court of Appeals dissent on an abortion case, you can see that he takes great pains to repeatedly point out he is bound to follow the superior court's ruling; implying that he strongly disagrees with Roe v. Wade.

That's pretty much an overt signal to Trump 'make me a justice and I'll overturn this **** for you.'

No, he just voted to uphold precedent. He was in the minority in that case.

I have no idea what Kavanaugh would do if faced with the question directly. It's certainly possible, and perhaps probable, that he would vote to overturn. But it is at least possible that he could write a concurring opinion that says "if we were writing on a blank slate in 1973, then blah blah blah . . . but we aren't writing on a blank slate . . . blah blah blah . . . stare decisis . . . blah blah blah . . . reluctantly decline to overturn Roe"

rumors around that alito is considering retirement.

he's 70 now have to think that he is thinking about having to stare down another probable 4 and possibly as many as 12 years of democratic presidents if biden's VP can capitalize on incumbency advantage. he's politically minded and apparently doesn't love his job the way thomas loves it.

of course mitch will obviously forgot he ever said anything about not confirming a judge in an election year and will try to ram through another unqualified heritage foundation puppet.

Not a chance in hell that they would get a SC nominee thru before Biden would assume the office.

Not even Schumer is pussy enough to let that go down.

If the GOP sees the writing on the wall for the probable blood bath in November, what's stopping them from turbo confirming some complete stooge like Neomi Rao or something? I don't see how Schumer can stop it. It will just be another party line vote.

nuclear option baby

McConnell would ram in through in the lame duck session. Not before. He's not dumb. McConnell is a lot of things. But he's not dumb.

The main thing that is stopping them is that they don't control when the next justice decides to step down.

If there were an immediate opening, I agree that McConnell has no shame and that he would try and ram a replacement through in the lame duck session.

I'm sure most posters will disagree, but I have my doubts about whether Thomas or Alito would step down immediately after a Trump loss in November and be complicit in McConnell putting what would effectively be an unvetted candidate on the Court.

Despite what most people think, all the justices care about their personal reputations, even Thomas, who probably cares the least. Any justice who pulled that stunt inevitably would end up on the wrong side of history.

That said, Thomas marches to his own drum, which could end up cutting either way. I guess that I think Thomas will retire whenever he decides that he no longer wants to be on the Court. That could be tomorrow, during the second month of a Biden presidency, or ten years from now. But I don't think he will retire "strategically" to help McConnell ram a conservative replacement through in a lame duck session.

I think the rumor mill is churning because Trump is polling so terribly. I agree that it's probably just conservative talk radio wishful thinking. Replace Alito/Thomas with two more 50 somethings and they control the Court for another good 20 years.

Is there anything to stop the Dems, under the looming threat of destroying the righties in November, threaten to just expand the supreme court to say, 12 judges like we have here in the UK. So even with a 5-4 majority, come February that suddenly becomes a 7-5 minority, install their own 50 something judges and wait for the boomer generation to fully die out before even thinking about starting to play fair again.

I mean any sense of propriety and fairness is surely no longer a thing, right?

The thing that will stop the Dems from doing that obvious, reasonable, necessary, fair, and just thing is... the Dems.